U.S. should recoil from UN rogues

[jlmadyson]

U.S. should recoil from UN rogues

U.N. Union: 'No Confidence' in Annan

Human rights sanctions blocked

By Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), the majority leader of the U.S. Senate
Published March 10, 2006

If the United Nations doesn't agree to major reforms of its Human Rights Commission, the U.S. should stick to its principles and withdraw from the body.

Since it began operations in 1946, this international human rights monitor can point to few successes. It failed to speak out against communism, failed to act against Rwanda's genocide and failed to condemn nations that sponsor terrorism. Instead, it has singled out Israel--the Middle East's only democracy--for continued criticism while overlooking serious human rights abuses throughout the Arab world. Today, emissaries from Cuba's communist dictatorship, Sudan's genocidal military rulers and Zimbabwe's kleptocratic regime sit on the commission and cast judgment on other nations' human rights records.

With such serial human rights abusers helping to call the shots, it's no surprise that the current commission simply doesn't work. Every day, governments from Venezuela to China, and from Saudi Arabia to Eritrea, take actions that belie any commitment to human rights. The commission, however, remains virtually silent.

While the UN bureaucracy has proposed a plan that has won a thin veneer of global support, it would make only superficial changes to the current commission structure. The Bush administration has proposed an alternate plan that would put the commission on a path to real reform. We know the plan makes sense because some of the world's worst human rights abusers object to it.

If the UN doesn't approve a meaningful reform package by the commission's March 13 meeting, the U.S. should seriously consider joining with other responsible countries to create a new human rights body outside of the UN system. We could jump-start such an initiative by withdrawing the U.S. share of funds that would otherwise go to the Human Rights Commission and giving those resources to the new organization.

A reformed body--inside or outside the UN--should remedy the manifest flaws that got us into the current situation. While any commission needs geographic diversity, human rights records have to come first: Current geographic quotas reserve seats on the commission for 15 African nations even though international democracy monitor Freedom House says the continent has only seven truly free countries. And with 53 members, the current commission is too large to conduct business efficiently. We should cut the number of nations seated on an international human rights body by at least a third and require that new members secure overwhelming support.

Major, long-established democracies should enjoy permanent membership on the commission or its successor, and countries whose human rights situation deteriorates should face removal. At minimum, countries charged with protecting the world's human rights should have to hold regular, competitive, democratic elections, allow for freedom of expression, and have a credible civil society.

The UN Human Rights Commission needs to change. If it does not, the U.S. should have the moral courage to withdraw from its proceedings and create a new, stronger, more credible body in its place.

Couldn't have said it better, if the UN HRC decides to not reform itself, we should pull out, funding included, and form a new body. As for Annan, well at least for his sake he is in his final year.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Can I make a motion for Bill Frist to withdraw from politics?

On topic: Are there other countries considering this as well? We can't just withdraw in hopes other countries will follow suit and join a US-headed world organization.

 

[RichardE]

I wonder how the US expects this commision to work properly when most of the mesaures it puts through, the US vetoes..

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: RichardE
I wonder how the US expects this commision to work properly when most of the mesaures it puts through, the US vetoes..

They want to make it so that the measures that come out aren't decided by countries such as Sudan, China, etc. For example, China at one time completely blocked any debate over its human rights record.

 

[sandorski]

Frist is an idiot. If he can't see what the UN has accomplished, he didn't bother looking.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: RichardE
I wonder how the US expects this commision to work properly when most of the mesaures it puts through, the US vetoes..

They want to make it so that the measures that come out aren't decided by countries such as Sudan, China, etc. For example, China at one time completely blocked any debate over its human rights record.

As I am sure the US/France/Britain/Russia would block one on there human rights record. The point is, the US blocks more of this commisions attempts than any other country, not to mention the blocks are usually the world is for, the US is against, so it gets killed. . Get rid of the VETO and use a more vote system and a much better operation of the UN would work. With that working, votes are decided by a world community, not just certain countries. As I said though, the majority of the US vetoes were on recomendations from this commision.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: RichardE
I wonder how the US expects this commision to work properly when most of the mesaures it puts through, the US vetoes..

They want to make it so that the measures that come out aren't decided by countries such as Sudan, China, etc. For example, China at one time completely blocked any debate over its human rights record.

As I am sure the US/France/Britain/Russia would block one on there human rights record. The point is, the US blocks more of this commisions attempts than any other country, not to mention the blocks are usually the world is for, the US is against, so it gets killed. . Get rid of the VETO and use a more vote system and a much better operation of the UN would work. With that working, votes are decided by a world community, not just certain countries. As I said though, the majority of the US vetoes were on recomendations from this commision.

The commission does not attempt many things seriously nowadays, such as with Sudan (which had to go to the security council to be condemned). I'm surprised that it even passed in the security council with countries like France, China, and Russia and their love & support of the genocidal regime in Sudan.

 

[daniel49]

the UN does not seem to work any better then the league of nations...maybe its time to start over.

 

[magomago]

And what does a new body mean? If the US tries to form a new body it sounds like we'll aim for a body that subjects everyone to its rule, except for America. No country will have a veto, except for America (and possibly allies). People will be tried under a international court, except America. Treaties are binding to all, except America...

I find it hard to beleive that we want another international body because of altruism...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: magomago
And what does a new body mean? If the US tries to form a new body it sounds like we'll aim for a body that subjects everyone to its rule, except for America. No country will have a veto, except for America (and possibly allies). People will be tried under a international court, except America. Treaties are binding to all, except America...

I find it hard to beleive that we want another international body because of altruism...

That's the US's main criticism of the UN, it's unwillingness just to approve everything the US wants. Just read Frist's own comments for proof.

 

[RichardE]

Could be the worlds response to the US shooting down things the world wants..

 

[zephyrprime]

What do some people expect the UN to be? The UN is a debating society and that's what it SHOULD be. It if should be more than a forum for diplomacy, what exactly should it be? The only way it could it be more "effective" would be eliminate the veto and to have a powerful military to enforce its edicts and nobody wants that it would be a true world government. I would also have to powers of taxation to fund itself and no one wants that either.

The alternative to the UN is to either ignore or fight wars with all the countries we disagree with.

So long as all the messed up countries in the world confine their sh!ttyness to their own borders, the UN is a success.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: magomago
And what does a new body mean? If the US tries to form a new body it sounds like we'll aim for a body that subjects everyone to its rule, except for America. No country will have a veto, except for America (and possibly allies). People will be tried under a international court, except America. Treaties are binding to all, except America...

I find it hard to beleive that we want another international body because of altruism...

they want an equal say , I say pay an equal share of the bills...Im tired of my tax dollars supporting an international do nothing agency

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: magomago
And what does a new body mean? If the US tries to form a new body it sounds like we'll aim for a body that subjects everyone to its rule, except for America. No country will have a veto, except for America (and possibly allies). People will be tried under a international court, except America. Treaties are binding to all, except America...

I find it hard to beleive that we want another international body because of altruism...

they want an equal say , I say pay an equal share of the bills...Im tired of my tax dollars supporting an international do nothing agency

How exactly do they do nothing? Or are you soley paroting what you hear? I imagine most of the people in this thread have no idea of the veto history, and what vetos are made on what, and how most of the vetos relate to this very commision.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: magomago
And what does a new body mean? If the US tries to form a new body it sounds like we'll aim for a body that subjects everyone to its rule, except for America. No country will have a veto, except for America (and possibly allies). People will be tried under a international court, except America. Treaties are binding to all, except America...

I find it hard to beleive that we want another international body because of altruism...

they want an equal say , I say pay an equal share of the bills...Im tired of my tax dollars supporting an international do nothing agency

How exactly do they do nothing? Or are you soley paroting what you hear? I imagine most of the people in this thread have no idea of the veto history, and what vetos are made on what, and how most of the vetos relate to this very commision.

50 years of watching them do nothing pretty much has convinced me I guess...don't think I will change my mind in the next 50.
Does this sound original enough?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Actually one of the biggest and lamest boondoggles in the history of the world was the formation of the United Nations.....there is and never will be anything United about the members of the UN....

Its rediculous and stoopid of us to even be a part of such an organization or bastions od fools...

 

[jlmadyson]

U.S. Won't Seek Seat on UN Human Rights Council

April 6 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. won't seek a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council, the State Department said, after initially pushing for the new panel and then voting against its formation out of concern that rights abusers might gain membership.

The U.S. wants to give nations such as Canada and the U.K., which are bidding for seats, the opportunity to represent the regional group that includes the U.S. and Western Europe, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in Washington. He said the U.S. will support the new panel financially and will probably seek membership next year.

``We will work closely with partners in the international community to encourage the council to address serious cases of human rights abuse in countries such as Iran, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan and North Korea,'' McCormack said. ``We are going to support its functioning politically, diplomatically as well as financially.''

The U.S. was one of only four nations to vote against the UN General Assembly resolution that established the Human Rights Council on March 15. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said alleged rights abusers such as Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe, which have seats on the current Geneva-based commission, might be able to gain membership on the new panel. The old commission ``cast a shadow on the reputation'' of the UN, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said when he proposed that it be replaced.

Representative Tom Lantos of California, the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, called the decision ``a major retrenchment in America's long struggle to advance the cause of human rights'' and a ``signal of U.S. isolation.''

`Profound Weakness'

``Today's announcement projects a picture of profound weakness in U.S. diplomacy,'' Lantos, who is also co-chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, said in a statement e- mailed to reporters. U.S. diplomats should have been able to get 96 General Assembly votes needed to seat the U.S. on the new council and to block membership for ``the likes of Zimbabwe, Iran, Syria and North Korea,'' he said.

The U.S. had been a member of the old commission since the body's formation in 1946, except for one year, 2002. European nations didn't support the U.S. that year because of its opposition to establishment of the International Criminal Court.

``It's childish for the U.S. government not to cooperate with the new council when it worked for decades with the vastly inferior Commission on Human Rights,'' Reed Brody, attorney for the Washington-based Human Rights Watch said. ``The council's universality will take a hit, but it is much bigger than the U.S.''

Elections

Election by secret ballot of the 47 seats on the Human Rights Council, which will also be based in Geneva, are scheduled to be held on May 9 and the panel will hold its first meeting in June, lasting 10 weeks. Membership, requiring 96 votes in the General Assembly, is open to all 191 member governments and will be based on an ``equitable geographic distribution.''

The U.S. sought election by a two-thirds vote and wanted about 30 members on a human rights panel that would promote democracy and exclude proven abusers of their citizens.

Thirty-five nations, including Algeria, Cuba, China, Georgia, Pakistan and Russia have said they will seek election to the Human Rights Council, according to the UN Web Site.

Creation of the council is part of an effort to implement agreements to improve UN management and overhaul the world body that were endorsed by world leaders at a summit in New York in September.

The U.S. has pressed for improvements in UN management and cost-cutting measures in the wake of former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker's investigative reports of corruption in the UN-administered Iraq oil-for-food program and an internal report on waste and abuse in the purchase of supplies and equipment for 15 peacekeeping missions.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Frist is a waste of atoms. Can't he just go away? Oh yea, and John 'kid gloves' Bolton is a fine example of a compassionate man :disgust:
What's next? berty gonzales on torture?

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Actually one of the biggest and lamest boondoggles in the history of the world was the formation of the United Nations.....there is and never will be anything United about the members of the UN....

Its rediculous and stoopid of us to even be a part of such an organization or bastions od fools...

I am always surprised about the lack of knowledge most people have about the UN. I must say, expecially american people.

They say the UN, and then talk about the UN Security council. The security council is not the UN. The amount of good things the United Nations and all the agency linked to the United Nations simply has no match in the world history.

The security council is an arena for geopolitics, and as everything else where politics and power are involved, it is not perfect. The constant criticism of the whole UN system based on the performance of the Security Council alone is simple lack of informations.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Actually one of the biggest and lamest boondoggles in the history of the world was the formation of the United Nations.....there is and never will be anything United about the members of the UN....

Its rediculous and stoopid of us to even be a part of such an organization or bastions od fools...

I am always surprised about the lack of knowledge most people have about the UN. I must say, expecially american people.

They say the UN, and then talk about the UN Security council. The security council is not the UN. The amount of good things the United Nations and all the agency linked to the United Nations simply has no match in the world history.

The security council is an arena for geopolitics, and as everything else where politics and power are involved, it is not perfect. The constant criticism of the whole UN system based on the performance of the Security Council alone is simple lack of informations.

You seem to be well informed on the UN. Why don't you enlighten us on all the good things the UN has done?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: Tango
I am always surprised about the lack of knowledge most people have about the UN. I must say, expecially american people.

I think the crapping on the UN started at the beginning of the Iraq Invasion

Originally posted by: sumyungai
Why don't you enlighten us on all the good things the UN has done?

# Maintaining peace and security - By having deployed a total of 54 peace-keeping forces and observer missions as of September 2001, the United Nations has been able to restore calm to allow the negotiating process to go forward while saving millions of people from becoming casualties of conflicts. There are presently 15 active peace-keeping forces in operation.

# Making peace - Since 1945, the United Nations has been credited with negotiating many peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts. Recent cases include an end to the Iran-Iraq war, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, and an end to the civil war in El Salvador. The United Nations has used quiet diplomacy to avert imminent wars.

# Promoting democracy - The United Nations has enabled people in many countries to participate in free and fair elections, including those held in Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Mozambique, Nicaragua, South Africa, Kosovo and East Timor. It has provided electoral advice, assistance, and monitoring of results.

# Promoting development - The UN system has devoted more attention and resources to the promotion of the development of human skills and potentials than any other external assistance effort. The system's annual disbursements, including loans and grants, amount to more than $10 billion. The UN Development Programme (UNDP), in close cooperation with over 170 Member States and other UN agencies, designs and implements projects for agriculture, industry, education, and the environment. It supports more than 5,000 projects with a budget of $1.3 billion. It is the largest multilateral source of grant development assistance. The World Bank, at the forefront in mobilizing support for developing countries worldwide, has alone loaned $333 billion for development projects since 1946. In addition, UNICEF spends more than $800 million a year, primarily on immunization, health care, nutrition and basic education in 138 countries.

# Promoting human rights - Since adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the United Nations has helped enact dozens of comprehensive agreements on political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights. By investigating individual complaints of human rights abuses, the UN Human Rights Commission has focused world attention on cases of torture, disappearance, and arbitrary detention and has generated international pressure to be brought on governments to improve their human rights records.

# Protecting the environment - The United Nations has played a vital role in fashioning a global programme designed to protect the environment. The "Earth Summit," the UN Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, resulted in treaties on biodiversity and climate change, and all countries adopted "Agenda 21" - a blueprint to promote sustainable development or the concept of economic growth while protecting natural resources.

# Preventing nuclear proliferation - The United Nations, through the International Atomic Energy Agency, has helped minimize the threat of a nuclear war by inspecting nuclear reactors in 90 countries to ensure that nuclear materials are not diverted for military purposes.

# Promoting self determination and independence - The United Nations has played a role in bringing about independence in countries that are now among its Member States.

# Strengthening international law - Over 300 international treaties, on topics as varied as human rights conventions to agreements on the use of outer space and seabed, have been enacted through the efforts of the United Nations.

# Handing down judicial settlements of major international disputes - By giving judgments and advisory opinions, the International Court of Justice has helped settle international disputes involving territorial issues, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, diplomatic relations, hostage-taking, the right of asylum, rights of passage and economic rights.

Lots more here

U.S. vetoes
30 Years Of U.S. UN Vetoes.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Actually one of the biggest and lamest boondoggles in the history of the world was the formation of the United Nations.....there is and never will be anything United about the members of the UN....

Its rediculous and stoopid of us to even be a part of such an organization or bastions od fools...

I am always surprised about the lack of knowledge most people have about the UN. I must say, expecially american people.

They say the UN, and then talk about the UN Security council. The security council is not the UN. The amount of good things the United Nations and all the agency linked to the United Nations simply has no match in the world history.

The security council is an arena for geopolitics, and as everything else where politics and power are involved, it is not perfect. The constant criticism of the whole UN system based on the performance of the Security Council alone is simple lack of informations.

I am amazed at the lack of knowledge some people have concerning the UN!!
http://www.solport.com/roundtable/archives/000232.php
Why Doesn?t the US Respect the UN?
Most Americans have very little respect for the UN or other bureaucrats. In general, the UN is not seen as a force for world peace, but as a collection of international bureaucrats who use US money to criticize America and cause problems. The US pays approximately 22% of the entire UN budget.



The United States is a Democratic-Republic that exists under a written Constitution. The right to representation is very important to us. So why give power to representatives of dictatorships and banana republics? The very idea of allowing the UN to have power over the US is abhorrent to most Americans and this is a large reason why the US is very careful to protect its national sovereignty. However Americans used to support the UN when it was seen as a force for world peace. But are Americans justified in their current contempt for the UN? Let us look at some recent examples of the UN in action.




The UN appointed a representative from Libya - Libya! - to chair the U.N. Human Rights Commissions. This would be a sick joke if it were not true. That is not just the opinion of America, here are some articles from the UK and France. Even writers in Pakistan - hardly at the forefront of human rights - condemned this miscarriage of justice.



A fearful Iraqi approached the UN inspectors at one of the UN compounds in Iraq and asked for sanctuary. This was not an unreasonable request, UN compounds typically provide diplomatic protection to those in need. At least they used to help people. This time, the UN security thugs were called and they turned the frightened man over to Iraqi 'police' where he was no doubt taken away to be beaten - at best.



In July, 1995 a contingent of UN Peacekeepers - who had promised protection to thousands of refugees - did nothing while about 7,000 males were slaughtered by the Serb Army. The Global Policy Forum concluded:




What should be learnt from this? It is important not to heap blame on the Dutch. The Dutch government, army and Dutchbat itself do deserve a measure of blame, but culpability spreads wider. The UN was hampered by a disagreement at the highest level between participating governments. America was committed to a policy of "lift and strike." It wished to lift an embargo on supplying arms to the Muslims, whom it favoured, and was keen to use air power against the Serbs.



For reasons still understandable, other governments thought that feeding arms into the country would only intensify the conflict, while they would not support air strikes against the Serbs alone. In the end, by supplying arms and training to the Croats, the Americans got the better of the Serbs. Much later, by bombing Serbia during the Kosovo war, they broke Serbian power altogether.





The UN bureaucracy could not bring themselves to authorize force to resolve the issue. Even their armed Peacekeepers did little to protect those they had promised protection. It was only the 'unilateral' decision of the US Government to forcibly intervene that stopped the conflict. Is it any wonder that Americans do not trust the UN to protect human life? The question for Americans is why do so many Europeans respect the UN?





I think these examples should be enough for anyone. Glenn Reynolds, the author of InstaPundit, has written a very compelling article showing that nations only get involved in genocidal wars when they may spill over into their territory. While his intent was not to blast the UN, his examples clearly show that the UN has a poor track record of stopping genocide. As an American, I am both proud and disappointed in my country's record. I am proud that we have put a stop to more of these genocidal wars than any other country in modern (all) history. And we did not do this out of fear these wars would jump oceans and impact our backyard - we did this out of respect for human life. I am disappointed that we did not act to stop more of these genocidal attempts. When all is said and done, it is clear that the US record in this area is far superior to that of the UN.



The UN could still have a helpful role in world affairs, but they need to clean up their own house before being treated seriously by Americans. However, they had better hurry or America may just withdraw from it. We have more effective uses for our money than funding people to criticize the US. And it looks like Japan, the second-largest funder of the UN, will be reducing the size of their contribution. Unless the UN changes course, it will join the League of Nations as yet another failed idea.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Actually one of the biggest and lamest boondoggles in the history of the world was the formation of the United Nations.....there is and never will be anything United about the members of the UN....

Its rediculous and stoopid of us to even be a part of such an organization or bastions od fools...

I am always surprised about the lack of knowledge most people have about the UN. I must say, expecially american people.

They say the UN, and then talk about the UN Security council. The security council is not the UN. The amount of good things the United Nations and all the agency linked to the United Nations simply has no match in the world history.

The security council is an arena for geopolitics, and as everything else where politics and power are involved, it is not perfect. The constant criticism of the whole UN system based on the performance of the Security Council alone is simple lack of informations.

I am amazed at the lack of knowledge some people have concerning the UN!!
http://www.solport.com/roundtable/archives/000232.php
Why Doesn?t the US Respect the UN?
Most Americans have very little respect for the UN or other bureaucrats. In general, the UN is not seen as a force for world peace, but as a collection of international bureaucrats who use US money to criticize America and cause problems. The US pays approximately 22% of the entire UN budget.



The United States is a Democratic-Republic that exists under a written Constitution. The right to representation is very important to us. So why give power to representatives of dictatorships and banana republics? The very idea of allowing the UN to have power over the US is abhorrent to most Americans and this is a large reason why the US is very careful to protect its national sovereignty. However Americans used to support the UN when it was seen as a force for world peace. But are Americans justified in their current contempt for the UN? Let us look at some recent examples of the UN in action.




The UN appointed a representative from Libya - Libya! - to chair the U.N. Human Rights Commissions. This would be a sick joke if it were not true. That is not just the opinion of America, here are some articles from the UK and France. Even writers in Pakistan - hardly at the forefront of human rights - condemned this miscarriage of justice.



A fearful Iraqi approached the UN inspectors at one of the UN compounds in Iraq and asked for sanctuary. This was not an unreasonable request, UN compounds typically provide diplomatic protection to those in need. At least they used to help people. This time, the UN security thugs were called and they turned the frightened man over to Iraqi 'police' where he was no doubt taken away to be beaten - at best.



In July, 1995 a contingent of UN Peacekeepers - who had promised protection to thousands of refugees - did nothing while about 7,000 males were slaughtered by the Serb Army. The Global Policy Forum concluded:




What should be learnt from this? It is important not to heap blame on the Dutch. The Dutch government, army and Dutchbat itself do deserve a measure of blame, but culpability spreads wider. The UN was hampered by a disagreement at the highest level between participating governments. America was committed to a policy of "lift and strike." It wished to lift an embargo on supplying arms to the Muslims, whom it favoured, and was keen to use air power against the Serbs.



For reasons still understandable, other governments thought that feeding arms into the country would only intensify the conflict, while they would not support air strikes against the Serbs alone. In the end, by supplying arms and training to the Croats, the Americans got the better of the Serbs. Much later, by bombing Serbia during the Kosovo war, they broke Serbian power altogether.





The UN bureaucracy could not bring themselves to authorize force to resolve the issue. Even their armed Peacekeepers did little to protect those they had promised protection. It was only the 'unilateral' decision of the US Government to forcibly intervene that stopped the conflict. Is it any wonder that Americans do not trust the UN to protect human life? The question for Americans is why do so many Europeans respect the UN?





I think these examples should be enough for anyone. Glenn Reynolds, the author of InstaPundit, has written a very compelling article showing that nations only get involved in genocidal wars when they may spill over into their territory. While his intent was not to blast the UN, his examples clearly show that the UN has a poor track record of stopping genocide. As an American, I am both proud and disappointed in my country's record. I am proud that we have put a stop to more of these genocidal wars than any other country in modern (all) history. And we did not do this out of fear these wars would jump oceans and impact our backyard - we did this out of respect for human life. I am disappointed that we did not act to stop more of these genocidal attempts. When all is said and done, it is clear that the US record in this area is far superior to that of the UN.



The UN could still have a helpful role in world affairs, but they need to clean up their own house before being treated seriously by Americans. However, they had better hurry or America may just withdraw from it. We have more effective uses for our money than funding people to criticize the US. And it looks like Japan, the second-largest funder of the UN, will be reducing the size of their contribution. Unless the UN changes course, it will join the League of Nations as yet another failed idea.

Well said, I was just too lazy to search for all of those informations. I have a friend who works for the UN in NY. He's as anti-Bush as one can get, and before he worked for the UN, he was all praises for the UN. As if the UN could do no wrong. Now that he's worked there for a few years, he came to the conclusion that the UN is filled with corrupted bureaucrats who's interests are for only themselves. This coming from an anti-Bush, pro-Democrat, pro-liberal, and previously pro-UN is a real convincing eye-opener. He still believes the UN can still do some good when it comes to food aid in third world countries, but other than that, they are hampered by too much politics.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: sumyungai
Well said, I was just too lazy to search for all of those informations. I have a friend who works for the UN in NY. He's as anti-Bush as one can get, and before he worked for the UN, he was all praises for the UN. As if the UN could do no wrong. Now that he's worked there for a few years, he came to the conclusion that the UN is filled with corrupted bureaucrats who's interests are for only themselves. This coming from an anti-Bush, pro-Democrat, pro-liberal, and previously pro-UN is a real convincing eye-opener. He still believes the UN can still do some good when it comes to food aid in third world countries, but other than that, they are hampered by too much politics.

thats pretty much how I see it as well
the UN is far from perfect but its the best we got, better have politicians fight wars with words than with guns

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: sumyungai
Well said, I was just too lazy to search for all of those informations. I have a friend who works for the UN in NY. He's as anti-Bush as one can get, and before he worked for the UN, he was all praises for the UN. As if the UN could do no wrong. Now that he's worked there for a few years, he came to the conclusion that the UN is filled with corrupted bureaucrats who's interests are for only themselves. This coming from an anti-Bush, pro-Democrat, pro-liberal, and previously pro-UN is a real convincing eye-opener. He still believes the UN can still do some good when it comes to food aid in third world countries, but other than that, they are hampered by too much politics.

thats pretty much how I see it as well
the UN is far from perfect but its the best we got, better have politicians fight wars with words than with guns

Sometimes we need a counsel with more teeth instead of a body that debates to no ends while people are being slaughtered, like what happened in Sudan and Serbia.